Rebuilding Trust/Corporate Culture

RUNNING HEADER: Rebuilding Trust Following Catastrophe Page 1
Case Assignment: Enron™ Sub Company Trust Loss
Management Consultant Review of Trust Rebuilding Following Catastrophe
Stacey Troup
Consulting in Global Management/MBA-607
January 21, 2020
Professor Dr. Anastaisia Luca
Touro University Worldwide

Abstract
Companies who have a toxic corporate culture due to their own failures to maintain
standards of ethics or who have a large turnaround due to poorly run departments often do not
look to repair these things and just accept them as commonplace. If a company is to truly
thrive with happy, contributing employees who do not fault one or a group of people for the
situation, but rather seek to change these behaviors through effective communication and
corporate engagement, they will find their way out of the darkness and into the light of a
competitive advantage due to their commitment to their employees lives.
Keywords:
Corporate Engagement, Enron™ Scandals, Effective Consultancy, Methods of
Engagement, Corporate Communication, Positive Corporate Culture

Post-Enron Scandal: General Electricity Employee Trust
Companies often go through their business days unconcerned with their high turn over,
what things like defrauding your employees may have on their business, or even operating
“rotating doors” of hiring practices due to their failure to onboard what a communicative,
healthy, ethical, strong workforce can bring to their competitive advantage and corporate culture.
In this Case Assignment, a review of a former consultant’s ideas, strategies and outcomes will be
reviewed against a contrary approach to recovering following this strife. Reviewing not only
what employee engagement means, requires, and how it should be implemented, but also the
ways in which success in the overall thought process of the internal employees can be
dramatically altered if carried out properly, leading to a rebuilt trust and strong competitive
advantage will also be discussed.
Enron Scandal: The Root Of The Problem
Employee retention and engagement are some of the biggest problems plaguing
companies in today’s environment. The tech sector took a large “hit” to their trust when Enron
went bankrupt and was subsequently found guilty of defrauding employees out of their life
savings for retirement. In addition to this public humiliation, the company was also found guilty
of insider trading, conspiracy, and securities fraud as they hid their debt off-book(s) as a way to
boost their company valuation and stock pricing (illegally). This led to several of the executives
doing jail time as well as the auditing firm of Arthur Anderson, who was a co-conspirator of this
fraudulent activity, following their illegal shredding of Enron’s documents as a way to hide the
fraudulent activity, closing their doors after 89 years in business as well as a charge of
Obstruction of Justice (as co-conspirators) (Obstruction of Justice, N.D.) (Segal, 2019) (ABC
News, 2009).

The widespread fraud on the part of Enron led to the tech crash as well as several integral
laws designed to protect the public from repeat performance by additional firms. In 2002, fmr.
President George W. Bush signed the Sabarnes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Kenton, 2019) as a measure
and safeguard against the destruction of documents (fraud) designed for investors. The FASB
also implemented, adapted, and amended newly minted rules, regulations and standards for
accounting practices as a means to restore ethical standards in business and recordkeeping
(Kenton, FASB, 2019) (Segal, 2019).
Recovering Employee Engagement & Trust
Portland General Electricity scrambled to retain employees, investors, and corporate
reputation following the unethical practices of their corporate office. They attempted to regain
trust within the organization (implied) by bringing in a consult to help them not only get to the
root of the problem within the organization but to attain a deeper understanding of how they
could rebuild the trust of their employees in lieu of this external threat. In addition to drawing on
the details provided from the previous consultant, Scott Frank, we are able to ascertain what
really plagues the ability to regain trust through our own research and feedback.
Means of Engagement
This theory, by definition, is the means in which different people learn and how we
choose to assist (engage) their learning via use of a comprehensive approach to understanding
their needs. There are six basic conversation styles to embrace as a map to communication and
engagement that are designed to change how someone thinks, learns, interacts, or becomes
motivated for the future. The six conversations will be discussed to ascertain a greater
understanding of the importance of the required conversations as well as how they impact
internal changes (Provide Multiple Means of Engagement, N.D.).

The Six Conversations
There are six basic conversation styles to begin opening the lines of communication and
begin rebuilding a true team environment focused on forward progress rather than past emotional
regression. Designed to be a roadmap to solution and recovery, the conversations each bring
their own individual results and expectations when implemented, embracing overall engagement
(A Small Group, 2020). The embedded image located within Appendix “A” is a visual
representation of the importance of trust rebuilding and the principles for doing so.
The Invitation Conversation
Designed as the first step to challenging and engaging employees. Imperative to this
conversation is allowing the employee to “self enroll” in the process as a way to experience their
“freedom of choice” rather than forced attrition. The value will become apparent in those who
have a desire to recover past issues with the company culture who proactively show up for these
conversations and participate without bias. Internally, these initial conversation styles will create
something of a “water cooler culture” whereby employees begin talking about what transpired
during the first offered meeting and what they thought of it, which (should) result in additional
opportunities for engagement of employees once they see the inherent value in this viable,
imperative first step designed as a means for repairing corporate culture and employee
engagement by the company (A Small Group, 2020).
The Ownership Conversation
Meant to engage the employees past the “poor me” phase of change as it proposes the
employee question “How have I contributed to creating the current reality?”. Specifically
targeted for alleviating dismissive answers such as “I don’t care” or “it doesn’t matter” by
shifting to the ownership phase of a problem and allowing the employees to embrace change

rather than living in the past. From this realization, employees are able to see where they went
wrong, how they contributed to the current situation at hand to begin putting a “first foot
forward” toward moving ahead rather than taking a dismissive stance of the problem or refusing
to grow from the experience (A Small Group, 2020).
The Possibility Conversation
Is the roadmap of what the future should be within our world or eyes. It targets how we
envision our futures, all while providing the emotional relief leading to innovation, ideas,
challenging “status quo”, and beginning the foundation for our future success. This is the third
phase of leaving the past issues and resentful natures behind the employees while empowering
them to make their own futures the best they can be (A Small Group, 2020).
The Dissent Conversation
One of the most difficult phases whereby employees are given clarity in their “go
forward” roles and can choose to say “no” (which is a positive) or “yes” (the negative). The
ability to say “no” is a refusal which is the “foundation for commitment”. Designed as a way to
bring to the surface clarity as well as doubts and dissent challenging employees into saying “no”
which might be a door to new responsibilities or progress that they didn’t realize (A Small
Group, 2020)
The Commitment Conversation
Is where breakthroughs happen. At this stage, the initial four conversations results and
feedback are put into a plan of action and employees are given the ability to put their plans into
actions and form a (once again) strong team environment. While two basic questions are within
this area that include reference to individual promises to the organization and the overall price
you are willing to pay for this change, this can lead to reduction or addition of responsibilities,

the formation of internal communication and project teams, and restructure the overall operation
to be leaner and more concise as a “unit” (A Small Group, 2020).
The Gifts Conversation
Evokes personal change for employees and managers encouraging everyone to focus on
their own change versus the shortcomings or issues of others within a team. We are, at this
stage, forced to focus on our own internal gifts for the overall team (and goal of rebuilding trust)
while searching for the highest possible achievements for ourself which will close the work/life
balance and evoke the feeling of a rebuilt organization who is focused on future success and who
has resolved the outside issues that led to the original problem (A Small Group, 2020).
Formative Strategy for Rebuilding Trust
Now that we know the types of conversations we are to engage the employees across the
organization in, a strategy on how to implement these building blocks and restructure the
corporate environment are now the primary focus.
Employees are far less likely to honestly answer any survey or questionnaire in which
they have to provide their name or that comes with tracking as a means of retaliation or
retribution for revealing their truth. For this reason, the anonymous survey is the choice for all
employees across this project during the initial stage. The hope with this methodology is that the
employee will feel free to express their true issues from core to environmental, that are leading to
their distrust and dissatisfaction. As the conversations ensue, the initial data received from the
anonymous surveys will be turned into targeted discussions to be had within groups to address
problems as a team. The choice to do the initial intake survey of questions via this method is
meant to develop a “first step” trust with the employee so that they can see we aren’t “witch-

hunting” for people to fire, we are simply looking to test the water of the overall problems which
plague rebuilding efforts as well as overall trust within an organization (Morrel-Samuels, 2002).
Corrective Action Plan
Reversing Cultural Entropy
Cultural entropy relates to the degree of dysfunction which exists within an organization.
Brought on through past issues such as the fraudulent issues committed by Enron for this
organization, it also includes misalignment of personal values and behaviors within an
organization, misalignment of processes and strategies, and a lack of overall mission alignment
with the employees (Grossman, 2018).
There are seven basic traits (behaviors) to develop in order to overcome cultural entropy;
purpose, authenticity, transparency, effective communication, belief in community, relationship
building, and (for the CEO) company-wide communications. Once developed and implemented,
these traits help re-establish the trust within an organization while reforming the past biases
(Grossman, 2018).
Give Purpose
Purpose refers to the reinforcement of employees, including performance, contribution,
and service. It is simply not enough to just treat your employees as a number or body, you have
to give them reinforcement through communication of their continued value added to the firm on
a regular basis. This is the thing most missing from modern-day performance evaluations as they
have taken a “positivity sandwich” and turned it into “change or leave” mentality. Continuing
regular milestone-based meetings with your employees not only open these communication
barriers but reaffirm to the employee that they have value and that their continued service and

input is valuable to the firm’s overall success (Grossman, 2018). Give them the sense that they,
too, have purpose and you will begin to regain their trust and contributions as a result!
Provide Authenticity
Authenticity is a trait almost extinct in today’s managers and HR professionals. It is the
ability to listen over speaking which provides “the quiet courage to relate to others” (Grossman,
2018). This stage is integral for both manager and employee to absorb as it requires you to
evaluate yourself from other perspectives as well as your own. This evaluation aids in the
understanding on how we are perceived (by both ourselves internally and to others) and adapt to
necessary shortcomings in our behavior in order to rectify modifications for successful
communication and relationships in the future (Grossman, 2018).
Within authenticity, the ability to getting to know yourself can come through exercises
and evaluations of reflection. In order to get to know yourself (the first step in the process), you
need to make an inventory of where in your past you may have acted less than “authentic” or
“real” as a means to either sell a product or get a perspective/point across to others. Placating, or
appealing to others through less than admirable means, places an emphasis on our trust issues as
when others hear you placating through your actions, your authenticity is damaged and the
ability to believe you becomes shattered. Begin by asking yourself what could you have done
differently in this situation to deliver the same message through other means which were more
truthful and “real” (Grossman, 2018).
Once you see how you are perceived through authenticity, you can take further steps to
view yourself by establishing lists of people you admire who authentic and researching how they
hold themselves in similar situations or how they delineate the message with integrity. You may
also decide to take an online or hard copy of a personality test such as a Meyers-Briggs™ which

help us understand our own SWOT review of our traits and personalities in a non-bias fashion.
Once you are aware of your own communication style and how it impacts your credibility, you
are able to begin the first phase of behavior modification to rebuild trust and perception
(Grossman, 2018).
Authenticity can be a very eye-opening trait as most of us tell our friends what they want
to hear in order to spare their feelings. However, in a business sense, the different
communication methods and how they are received by people set the tone for how we are
perceived to our peers and superiors. You can begin the road to truthful communication by
establishing (or encouraging the establishment) of “truth allies”. These people are colleagues
you befriend who can hear your concerns, are familiar with the situations or company from an
insider’s perspective, and will then provide truthful, non-biased feedback on your actions,
corrective behavioral modifications, and even help you practice better communication styles
(Grossman, 2018). These people can be “mirrors” to your behavior and help you overcome
issues you may be blind to as you are unable to see things from other perspectives without this
constructive criticism.
Offer Transparency
So here we are, we have looked at ourselves from an internal and external perspective
and formed the necessary relationships to gain a greater understanding of how we communicate
and its impact on how others perceive/receive us as well as how they view the legitimacy and
trust behind same. This stage is where it is imperative that you place a value on telling the truth,
no matter how the other person may feel. This is not to say you should approach others unkindly
but reverse your thinking to that of a “Truth Ally”. You would ask that they provide you with
this type of feedback to better yourself so if you are now someone else’s ally, respect them

enough to provide levity with proper communication allowing them to know that this feedback is
not meant to be unkind but constructive in nature (Grossman, 2018).
The adaptation for managers to embrace components a flat management style that
encourage free lines of communication at all levels of the company, but also encourage
subcultures of management styles to be adapted in order to fit different department’s needs and
cultures is imperative to success. For example, tech companies like Google™ use an overall flat
structure while allowing these subcultures to be developed due to their knowledge that some
employees often struggle to communicate (such as programmers who often have social anxiety).
By adapting to the communication and management styles independent of the overall corporate
structure, you foster environments showcasing your understanding and compassion for your
colleagues, employees, and their respective needs (Tran, 2017). Additionally, the components of
the flat management for the overall company have resulted in some of the most common
products from the company we use today, as the flat structure is designed at the corporate level
in order to open lines of communication across all levels while encouraging the free-flowing
stream of ideas that stem from employees at all levels.
Once transparency has been established, leaders will hear news (good or bad) and process
necessary plans of change for either structure or employee (good or bad) regardless of the
outcome to best align the entire situation with the company goals. Employees are involved in
this decision as they are consulted on the situations while being treated as “partners” rather than
employees, focused on the overall health and goals of the mission and vision of the company.
Leaders focus on these fundamentals following feedback and communication (constant) in order
to change, challenge, or replace employees as needed (rather than just removing one person who
may be misunderstood, arbitrarily) (Grossman, 2018).

Open (Lines of) Communication
Change is not easy for anyone. The ability to recognize one’s own shortcomings is
imperative to their ability to adapt and change. Encouraging communication is difficult when
the perception is still in the “me” vs “we” stage of resentfulness (Grossman, 2018).
When we embrace change from the inside as a priority over that of the outside, we need
to embrace a strong corporate culture driven for the same results as a team. When these changes
are onboarded and implemented, they also need to be continually reevaluated as a means to lean
management methods in order to determine viability of communication and messages (such as
products used) as time goes on. By offering portals such as intranet sites, we bring together
employees who are remote or out of the area into the mix of our internal workings. Historically,
these people have been left to feel “locked out” because of issues accessing the same information
available if they were local whereby the information was unable to be attained (Chow, 2019).
Often, these communication efforts are spearhead by people who encompass a
“communications team”. One way to engage these teams is by building them with varying levels
of employees from different departments as an opening to their respective areas of expertise.
This will also open the lines of communication across the divisions of a company and foster a
positive corporate culture. This also alleviates the reluctance many employees have to change as
their lack of communication on particular changes may be perceived as a means to end their
employment all together (Chow, 2019).
Reinforce & Rebuild Belief in Community (strenghten communication)
Continued communication leads to a change from the “me” mentality to a more team-
centric “we” as employees are part of the change process and the innovation for the company.
This “breaking down” of walls to effective communication will also foster potential at the

individual level for people to add to their responsibilities or skills as they view the company as
taking an active interest in their evolution and growth, rather than living at standards from hiring
to retirement with no possibility of being challenged or growth (Grossman, 2018) (Chow, 2019).
Intercompany communication should be addressed from a perspective of purpose,
transparency, and authenticity as executives/managers should ensure that they are also delivering
their messages properly and without preconceptions or negativity to their colleagues (Grossman,
2018).
During my time at a recent investment bank as a consultant, my boss (a Global Managing
Director) said to me on my 4th day that he isn’t my boss, he is my colleague; that we work on the
same team toward the same goals. It drove a lot of the specialty projects I took on for him
without being asked to do so as I felt part of his success and he embraced my growth and
development along the way.
Where this partnership failed was at the company level where they feel that as an
assistant, we should be seen and not heard and that the tasks I was doing were not my job but
those of a position 2 levels higher than where I was hired. They never communicated with my
(boss) to find out he had intentions to promote me twice in the upcoming year to that level and
he encouraged what I brought to the team never taking into consideration my title or salary. This
was truly a positive communication relationship but attempts failed when the company didn’t
uphold the same beliefs. A shining example of a positive impact at a company with a negative
corporate culture and how it can negate positive true changes and also can impact corporate
reputations.

Relationship Focus
We have all worked for a firm where it felt like Survivor Island. Employees were never
able to bring a work/life balance into the fold as there was (seemingly) no interest in their lives
outside of the company. During the self-reflection stage mentioned previously, ask yourself how
many times you have been guilty of this in your own past and how you can change this behavior
to foster the open environments you are seeking.
As outlined in “7 Critical Traits For Building Trust” by David Grossman (Grossman,
2018), the author also details seven key attributes that should be addressed in order to showcase a
true interest in your employees. When these traits are addressed, employees feel more part of the
group and the overall success, as well as these empathetic concerns over your employees
wellbeing, will be showcased over less time as they build trust. As we become closer with our
employees and understand that they have issues and concerns outside of the office, we are better
able to understand why certain situations may arise or why certain behavioral patterns may exist
in employees at times (Conversations between self and self as Sigmund Freud—A virtual body
ownership paradigm for self counselling, 2015) (Grossman, 2018).
Direct communication as a first step is the managers responsibility in order to rebuild trust
with a group/organization. When we stop “spinning” our message and just use honest, direct
means of message delivery, we begin to show the employee that we value their concerns over the
delivered message and want to not only get to the “root” of the problem but also are concerned for
the underlying reason a problem or situation arose in the first place (Chow, 2019).
From open communication to establishing goals and expectations. During periodic
reviews, managers often focus on the negative or discuss past behaviors, successes,
accomplishments, and contributions (in healthier firms) but fail to establish goals for their

employees that drive their success or encourage their further growth and performance. This is a
failure on the part of the manager and negatively impacts both the individual and the team
(Grossman, 2018).
Embracing the “360° Review” process enables feedback from the team working with these
individuals as well as feedback from other departments who interact with the employee to provide
a “full circle” vision of their work habits, interactions, and overall team contribution, rather than
focusing on only what is perceived from a management perspective. What will also become
prevalent during this process are the cliques that have formed and who has not moved from the
“me” to the “we” phase as personal feedback is provided. This will allow for a more broad view
of the team and its employees overall (Koulopoulos, 2018).
Listening, the third concept in this theory, is often the hardest to onboard for managers.
This is due to their perceived notion that they are there to tell you how and why rather than listen
to the underlying feedback that comes from delivering a message with both concern, trust, and an
implied plan of correction. Two-way communication is key to team building and trust
establishment (or re-establishment) and will showcase your care for your employees (Grossman,
2018).
Taking action is key to the portion of teambuilding that is lost through the loss of trust,
impact. When an employee brings a suggestion or idea to a manager, they want to see
improvements that bring a positive change. This is why it is a manager’s responsibility to provide
feedback to any employee providing suggestions. In situations with distrust, managers have often
taken employees ideas and passed them off as their own. This trust is almost impossible to rebuild
with the manager and leads to a loss of loyalty and/or (loss of) continued contribution. To the
same end, even if an idea has been reviewed but cant be implemented, the means of communication

of the message should still be a positive one. By simply saying that you thank the employee for
their contribution and although the idea was not approved for implementation, you appreciate their
contribution and ideas, and welcome the employee to bring you any ideas they may have in the
future, it will show the employee that the you believe in them enough to take such ideas to the well
for approval and that the employee will receive the necessary credit or appreciation for ideas in
the future while reaffirming your trust and concern regarding their lives (Grossman, 2018).
Many companies have lost the “human” aspect of “human resources”. Driven by resume
queuing bots for resume review, staffed by unqualified people who lack HR skills to develop
employee career paths, and often just a disciplinary outlet for poorly run companies, the human
aspect is imperative to rebuilding teamwork and trust in any organization (SHRM Foundation,
2016). Embrace your employees milestones both personally and professionally, from a place of
care and empathy, and you will have their loyalty, trust, and contributions for a lifetime (Grossman,
2018).
Empathy is key to removing the chaos of a delivered message and ensuring your employee
understands that you truly care. It isn’t enough to just listen and provide feedback, managers have
a responsibility to get to the root cause of why someone is feeling a certain way in order to help
the employee resolve the conflict at hand while simultaneously understanding (at greater depth)
the key issues of the problem (Grossman, 2018) (Campbell, 2018). The empathetic manager builds
a team environment, retains staff, has an autonomy of trust, and transitions “me” thinkers to “we”
thinkers (Campbell, 2018).
Reinforcement is the final attribute of a successful, driven team based on mutual respect
and trust. As previously indicated, when employees feel they are part of the company success and
goals, they are more apt to provide ideas and overcome past transgressions in favor of a healthier

corporate culture. Often, people forget how a simple “thank you” can transform perceptions while
making employees feel appreciated. Make sure you always find a way to let someone know you
appreciate their efforts, contributions, and assistance. It can be anything from a manger thanking
you for something you did, you sending an email to someone else's manager (copying your own)
to express your gratitude for a job well done, or simply reinforcement through emails to assure
team members that you are all part of a team that will be there for each other in times of trouble.
These are the personal touches that drive the interpersonal relationships with others while
showcasing empathy and a positive environment (Grossman, 2018).
Open Channels of Effective Executive Communication (CEO)
Many companies still block effective communication and forward progress through
“walls” within their firm by restricting access to executives at different levels. Throughout my
life, I have never experienced a worse instance of this scenario than the investment bank I
recently consulted for discussed previously. As an assistant, you were only allowed to speak to
other assistants and never anyone at a VP level or higher. You had to deal with their assistant
who was more of a placeholder than a partner and getting anything done was clogged and riddled
with ineffective turnaround. Imagine how difficult getting anything done has to be when you
don’t have true “open doors” of communication and you are treated as a “second class citizen”
who should be seen and not heard. My concerns were addressed with my immediate colleague
(to whom I reported to) and he, too, found this old style of thinking terribly counterproductive to
effective communication.
When firms hire people you often hear that they have an “open door” policy but that is
only in theory to your supervisor. Companies like Google™ regularly hold meetings where all
employees of all levels are brought together weekly in order to talk about the “State of the

Union” so to speak. This open, flat-style of communication leads to greater idea flow,
interpersonal relationships, trust and overall value an employee feels as part of the company
goals. It is a driving reason why the corporate culture at Google™ is so often studied as well as
why the company continues to have retention, innovation, and greater market share, globally
(Grossman, 2018) (Tran, 2017).
The Consultant – Phase II
As implied from the case assignment, Pacific General Electric (PGE) sought the expertise
of a consultant by the name of Scott Frank who held 12 meetings in the first year with lateral
leadership whereby employees were invited across the company to attend. What was noted was
that not all employees decided to attend and this trait showcased to management who was
beyond their reach. Employees who do not wish to be part of the company’s overall change are
often the roadblocks to rebuilding things such as trust, the main thing that PGE sought to rebuild.
In the second year, the consultant held quarterly meetings with the same optional
attendance implied. During these meetings, the consultant posed questions to the employees
which prompted them to consider what the company would need to do in order to rebuild both
trust and accountability through ideas that the employees offered. As these questions were
considered, the employees provided feedback that included issues such as a desire to create an
environment that was more welcoming to overall open to interactions and communication, better
communication through “open-door policies” to help resolve difficult issues, assistance to help
employees realize their own responsibilities (their roles in the situation), and that they gained a
greater understanding of the importance in the corporate culture that requires moving away from
a hierarchical structured management communications.

While the consultant started these meetings at the mid-level management level, it appears
that only higher-level executives within the firm attended the meetings going forward up to the
completion date.
Lessons Learned
While the original consultant seemed to do his best to address the employees needs and
restructure the corporate culture, it appears that employees below a management level were
never included nor did they participate in the exercises of the change management. While invites
were sent to all (implied) the results are skewed toward managements views of the needed
changes that are necessary to change the view of the corporate office’s issues (as implied).
A consultant could take these questions and results and form a secondary strategy using
targeted conversations with the previous results of same as a way to test the waters of change, the
success rate to change the employees thinking and trust following that attempt, as well as the
willingness and success of the company to implement the changes suggested for a more positive
corporate culture.
Conversations Evoking Change
Using a collaborative consultancy approach whereby the considerations of the employees
are considered following the completion of work by the previous consultant, we can then phrase
our questions to the situation at hand while simultaneously understanding to the root problem of
why employees at the lower level were not included in the corporate cultural change attempt
(McNamara, N.D.).
As the previous consultant had only a partial turnout without the benefit of all workers,
the approach that will be taken at this stage will be a first step meeting with only lower-level
employees to enable the realizations that the consultant has a their trust and confidentiality at

heart, which will not result in retaliation should their issues reach management. Each of the
meetings (including and) following this initial meeting will be attendance optional, all survey
questions kept confidential (no names or details), and will conclude at project completion with
an “all hands” meeting to thank the company for their time and feedback prior to submitting the
final report to the management to evoke the changes desired.
Once the levels of employees are wrapped into the fold of the process, the idea is to open
meetings to all levels on an “at-will” basis, allowing them to make the decisions to attend. As
these meetings gain greater waves of attendance, specific exercises can be developed to help
employees communicate through interactive role-play as the trust rebuilding exercises and
communication continue throughout the process.
Possibility Conversation
The “Possibility Conversation” is designed to engage employees to envision what they
wish their futures to become rather than focusing on the past with negative feelings (A Small
Group, 2020). Questions within this section would be similar to/including:
 How would I like my life to be different in 5 years? In 10 years?
 What am I doing to make these changes possible?
 How do I feel things need to change in order to help you reach your future goals?
 Do I actively seek out challenges in my work? Examples?
What will be gained from these questions will be a first step from blame to realization of
self-realized responsibility for the current place in the situation or how they impacted this stage.
The questions will evoke the employee to ask themselves hard questions regarding their futures,
how they see it, what they are doing to get there, and what the company can do to help them with
milestones to achieve these goals. Implied results will have the employees wondering why,

following a negative experience at the hands of Enron™, this question is being asked as they
realize that the company has suddenly interested in their feedback and success within the
company (A Small Group, 2020) (McNamara, N.D.).
Following this conversation, the thought process will be sparked which will ignite the
ideas in the additional discussions and will help the employee turn from a “poor me” perspective
to a “go-us!” perspective (A Small Group, 2020) (McNamara, N.D.).
Dissent Conversation
This stage is necessary to challenge the issues the employee faces and to clarify overall
roles, reservations, challenges, etc. that they face daily as a way to envision what is needed for
positive change. In this area, if an employee answers “no” it is a positive answer and “yes” is a
negative answer, as the “no” is an opportunity. This may seem unusual but the dissent
conversations are constructed to showcase why complacency leads to dissent through
questions/statements (as follows):
 I hardly ever bring my issues to my supervisor to be resolved
 I am hesitant to question policies, procedures, or authority
 I do not bring ideas to my boss that I think will improve a situation
 I join others when they are unhappy in expressing my discontent verbally
 I openly criticize decisions of management to others
As these questions showcase a negative approach to conflict resolution and open lines of
communication, the ability to answer “no” to these questions proves the employee tries to
participate and communicate regularly. In the alternative, if an employee says yes to these
questions, they are in an upward or latent dissent positions which do not seek an amicable
resolution to overall issues but prefer to have others feel sorry for them (Cenkci, 2019).

Ownership Conversation
This level of employee engagement is designed as a “mirror” to enlighten employees as
to how they are responsible for the current situation. Within this example of post-traumatic legal
happenings at the corporate level, the opening question is always “How have I contributed to the
current problem?”. This is how we guide employees to look beyond the initial issues at hand.
From this point, questions may be asked such as “What could I have done to prevent this
problem?”, “How could I have avoided personal and overall corporate risk and loss when our
corporate office committed fraud and I lost my 401(k) savings?” (A Small Group, 2020)
(McNamara, N.D.). .
When we truly look at these situations, there are likely markers to problems such as
rumors, spikes in stock pricing, confidential emails floating around or even meetings with code
names designed to keep them away from others which may detail how the executives intend to
roll out this type of fraud against the employees.
Simply turning a blind eye is what most employees do. Keeping their heads down and
just doing what is brought to them rather than being a proactive force behind their own success
as well as the health of the company. Phrasing questions with an emphasis on the personal
aspects of reality avoid the dismissive “I don’t know” or “I don’t care” answers often given when
employees wish to avoid the conversation as well as their own part in the overall issue (A Small
Group, 2020).
An example from my own past as to how a situation could have been avoided was during
my time supporting the President of a media company during the tech crash and the 9/11 attacks
(where we were 2 blocks from the WTC at the time). In the 2 ½ years I was with the company,
we lost our listing on NASDAQ, became a penny stock, and were acquired and subsequently

bankrupt a second time in the second year. In retrospect, I saw the problems on the wall but
didn’t onboard them at the time. From the stock market falling drastically to my own executives
having me submit their personal shares of company stock sales on their behalf whereby they
were liquidating prior to the bankruptcy, had I realized the larger problem at the time, I could
have saved my own stock options and value by exercising the options and seeing the financial
risk that we were about to endure.
Whistleblower Protection
In some situations, such as this Enron™ issue, “whistleblowers”, aka people who report
unethical behavior to either executives within the firm or external civil regulatory agencies (SEC,
FINRA, FBI, IRS) when these frauds occurred as a way to shield themselves from the fallout
while standing behind the convictions of their ethical beliefs (an example of risk). There are
certain laws, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act (2008) which was
enacted into law following instances such as the Enron™ and Tech bubble problems where fraud
was immense and economic collapse occurred as part of the Equity Markets Crash in 2007
(Kenton, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
While these laws were altered, amended, and added to over the years, protection existed
for more than 20 years prior under Section 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against
Corruption Act (ELAINE KAPLAN, 2001) for the protection of whistleblowers who report such
instances against retaliation by employers.
Whistleblowers and how they are protected were best showcased under the Federal Acts
designed to shelter them from retaliation and were brought to light during the scandal committed
by Wells Fargo wherein fraudulent accounts were opened for individuals at the order and
instance of executives as a way to bolster their sales goals (2016). Ethical employees took a

stance and reported these issues to regulatory agencies as well as internal fraud reporting lines
established by the company as ethical standards against fraud. The company and its executives,
however, were so vastly corrupt, they fired dozens of employees who either called the fraud line,
refused to open the fraudulent accounts, or who attempted to report their illegal activities to
authorities. The bank was subsequently sued for “Wrongful Termination” and other illegal
practices under retaliation situations they created as they removed these employees after
exposing the internal fraud they were asked to (or required to) commit at the hands of executives
of the firm (Egan, 2016) (Marsh, 2018) (Passman & Kaplan, P.C., 2018).
In a Class-Action lawsuit filed by the employees (most, of which details are confidential),
the employees revealed how the company violated Whistleblower protection laws and sought
damages, reinstatement, restitution, license reinstatements, and punitive damages as a result of
the bank’s actions. This was in addition to the record-breaking penalty they would subsequently
pay as a result of their unethical business practices (Egan, 2016) (Marsh, 2018) (Passman &
Kaplan, P.C., 2018).
These employees had ownership of their own responsibilities from the beginning and
refused to fall victim of unscrupulous business practices as a result of company demands or
actions. Their cases were all upheld by the courts following large payouts for fees, fines, and
penalties, as well as some employees being reinstated with retroactive pay and punitive damages
as restitution for their actions. True ownership of responsibilities come with the occasional fight
but when you are ethically sound, you have the weight of zero accountability for the problems on
your shoulders as you seek to unearth these practices to the masses (Egan, 2016).

Commitment Conversation
Once the realization of what could have been done to avoid the situation that happened,
we begin to rebuild “go forward” behaviors or actions to avoid such problems in the future
through self-realization and a course of action befitting ethical behavior (A Small Group, 2020).
Questions designed for this planning stage of the future include questions such as “What
promises can I make to the company to assure such unethical behaviors do not happen
(here/again)?”, “How can I ensure my company receives my concerns over such behavior in
order to take swift resolution?”, and “To what end am I willing to risk my own career when
reporting such unethical actions on behalf of my company?” (A Small Group, 2020).
These questions are not designed to point blame or risk a career but are rather designed to
showcase the level of commitment an employee is willing to provide in order to ensure ethical
business practices for a company following instances such as this. Employees and employers
alike both able to see which employees are seeking a positive change in both themselves and the
company through these types of questions as well as how they hold a competitive advantage to
hold this employee through turbulent times against competitors by recognizing these employees
while encouraging their growth, alignment with strategic goals, corporate reputation and/or
culture, and contribution (Vance, 2006).
A loyal, ethical employee is the most valuable asset a company can own. These
employees offer personal risk and sacrifice while ensuring that ethical business practices and an
overall competitive advantage are upheld, which drive the corporate culture and reduce
regulatory or legal risks to the overall corporate structure. Companies need to put extra value on
employees who are easily able to not only identify their ownership for past issues but also who

are recognizing of future willingness to risk in order to see both company and themselves thrive
(Vance, 2006)
Gift Conversation
The final conversation topic to help turn past blame into forward progress is the Gift
conversation. Within this dynamic, which usually happens as a follow-up to the other meetings
at a time of review or specific time frames, employees should be encouraged to discuss their
assets that they bring to the table. Questions that can be posted in advance of this meeting to
prepare the employee are “What is a strength I possess that I do not currently use during the
course of my work?”, “In order to help advance me to the next level in my career, I have taken
what courses or training that I have not yet advised my employer?”, and “What team building
activities or committees is the company planning on forming in upcoming years that I may be a
part of in order to assist with internal growth?”.
The Focus of the questions is for the employee to showcase their strengths and provide
self-reflective realization of not only skills and plans they wish to bring to the future, but may
open the doors to help the company’s corporate culture (like suggesting they do charity work
together or sponsor a child’s team) which build the teamwork frame as well as allow teams to
focus as “family” both inside and outside the company walls, bringing a balance which will drive
retention, happiness, growth, and overall company profile.
Recent years have seen a boost in companies focused on changing their culture to more
team-oriented with a strong policy of giving back to the communities. Even more, the ability to
match an employees charitable donation encourages a culture of care both internally and
externally while allowing the employee to decide where their donation is directed based on their
personally held beliefs. Many firms have also started giving a certain number of paid

“Volunteer” days per year which can only be used (as time off) when volunteering. This is a
second stage of showcasing how important their culture is both internally and externally as they
want their employees to be engaged at all times with the custumers, colleagues, and communities
(A Small Group, 2020). (Note: Statistics can be found here) (America's Charities, N.D.).
Prior Consultant Feedback
As the assignment implies, the previous consultant provided feedback through
summarization in the last paragraph on what his intentions are with these communication styles
in order to attain a breakthrough and what specific breakthrough’s he was seeking from the team
“I have a dream or picture about how I want a workplace to be”.
Building on what he began, the consultant had some slightly misaligned messages as part
of that quote. The vision for the company should not be what “he” sees for the workplace
culture, but rather, how they can all let go of the past problems and blame in order to come
together in one, ethically-sound company culture following the misgivings of their corporate
office. Rather than taking a “me/my/I” tact to this statement, a better resolve would be to begin
the conversation with the statement “Trust. Ethical Business Operations. Employee retention
and happiness. Corporate engagement and communication at all levels. These are the
foundations of rebuilding the relationships and culture within our firm after what we have been
through together. Your engagement in the realignment of the failures of our corporate office to
maintain these values will be the building blocks which this company moves forward with as we
continue to build our house on more solid ground.”
Through the statement developed, we are clearly aligning our message to the employees
that they are our biggest asset and value going forward. We showcase that we care about their
continued contributions and happiness and this statement will be the overall tone of the meetings

they attend. By acknowledging that the blame was at the corporate level and we seek to
overcome it with the help of employees, we will create a more positive work environment.
Designed as a powerful “teaser” to the meetings that they will attend, it will pique curiousity and
encourage attendance.
Meeting Frequency
While the previous consultant apparently held meetings in a 3-hour lateral (peer-to-peer)
style which some may find threatening. Not everyone is ready to confront their peers or their
superiors as to what the problems are and this step should have been done in more “Baby Step”
methods and processes.
In addition to these lateral meetings, there were 12 lateral leadership meetings which
were continued in years two and three on a quarterly basis. What is seemingly missing from his
attempts are the stages of rebuilding. From the first conversation, the feedback should have been
combined into a report and then used as part of the second conversations and given as an
exercise that uses steps toward a goal, rather than a leap as the previous did. By the time we
would reach the communication stage, we would be able to better understand what employees
need to regain this trust as well as allow them to express these issues more openly (Ryan, 2018).
Also missing from the prior consultant’s attempts is a plan of action for the company to
follow and alter as needed including checking in on employees progress outside of review
periods to see how the company (and the employee) is doing on the communication and trust
issues addressed in the exercises. Employees want to feel engaged and appreciated and sans this
continued follow up, they may feel that the company was just baiting them and wasting their
time, rather than taking active strides toward correction (Ryan, 2018).

Conclusion
Rebuilding employee confidence and trust is not easy following a catastrophic misstep
such as the one committed by Enron™, but it is not impossible. By not only taking steps toward
employee engagement which showcase not only the company’s desire to truly change but also
helping employees go from the blame stage to a more communicative stage of self-actualization
and realization, you will help to repair the damage done in a way that helps the employee feel
valued and part of the company’s continued success.
Just understanding what engages employees or hiring a consultant isn’t enough to repair
the widespread change needed. The company has to continue their commitment to the
employees and their business through innovative changes internally as well as continued growth
in communication in order to foster stronger working relationships and the regrown trust of the
staff.
Getting to the root of the problems through the means of engagement style questions as
well as building a framework to repair internal relationships with the employee, will help their
continued trust and contributions as the process continues. The understanding and acceptance of
responsibilities for the current situation as well as what might have been done different will help
employees change their past emotional distress into positive forward movement as they take the
six steps to help realize their value, worth, and their employers commitment to their
contributions and employment.
What must not be lost is the willingness and followthrough for both parties in order to
carry out any monumental change, less the desired outcome be lost on “naysayers” who refuse to
change and inject a toxic environment into your companies (from any level). Encourage
employees to grow, volunteer, donate, give back, and engage their communities through
programs designed to encourage same and you will show them that their community and

work/life balances matter as much outside the company as it does from the inside. Continue the
encouragement of open communications and the building of personal relationships of your staff.
This will enable them to bounce ideas off of their colleagues and supervisors and better
contribute as they will feel part of the company’s success, and, that the company sees them as a
valuable asset as well.
Embrace the change at all levels to truly transform your corporate culture from toxic and
untrusting to a positive, ethical force for change. Communication is the key. Open the lines for
your staff today for a better tomorrow.

Appendix “A”
Building Trust

References
A Small Group.(2020). 6 Conversations. RetrievedfromA Small Group:
http://www.asmallgroup.net/pages/content/6_conversations.html
ABC News.(2009, 12 8). ArthurAndersen GoesOutof Business.RetrievedfromABC:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Decade/arthur-andersen-business/story?id=9279255
America'sCharities.(N.D.). Facts&Statisticson WorkplaceGiving, Matching Gifts,and Volunteer
Programs.RetrievedfromAmerica'sCharities:https://www.charities.org/facts-statistics-
workplace-giving-matching-gifts-and-volunteer-programs
Campbell,S.(2018, 03 29). 9 ReasonsTeamsLoveEmpathetic Managers.RetrievedfromEntrepreneur:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311091https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311091
Cenkci,A.T. (2019). Linkingemployee dissenttoworkengagement:Distributive justice asamoderator.
Journalof Behavioraland Applied Management,19(1),1-21. Retrievedfrom
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2230820469?accountid=14376
Chow,C. (2019, 07 29). 7 Reasons InternalCommunicationsIsatthe Centerof ChangeManagement.
RetrievedfromLearningHub:https://learn.g2.com/internal-communications-in-change-
management
Conversationsbetweenself andself asSigmundFreud—A virtualbodyownershipparadigmforself
counselling.(2015). Scientific Reports.Retrievedfrom
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4564809/
Egan, M. (2016, 09 27). Fired Wells Fargo workersfightbackwith federal lawsuit.RetrievedfromCNN
Business:https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/26/investing/wells-fargo-fake-accounts-worker-
lawsuit/index.html

ELAINEKAPLAN,S.C. (2001). The International Emergence of Legal ProtectionsForWhistleblowers*. The
Journalof Public Inquiry,37-42. Retrievedfrom
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/f01c10.pdf
Grossman,D. (2018). 7 Critical Traits for Building Trust. RetrievedfromYourThoughtPartner:
https://www.yourthoughtpartner.com/hubfs/pdf/7_Critical_Traits_For_Building_Trust_eBook.p
df
Kenton,W.(2019, 05 10). Dodd-FrankWallStreetReformand ConsumerProtection Act.Retrievedfrom
Investopedia:https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dodd-frank-financial-regulatory-reform-
bill.asp
Kenton,W.(2019, 04 05). FASB.RetrievedfromInvestopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fasb.asp
Kenton,W.(2019, 10 13). Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Actof 2002. RetrievedfromInvestopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sarbanesoxleyact.asp
Koulopoulos,T.(2018, 02 25). PerformanceReviewsAreDead.Here's WhatYou Should Do Instead.
RetrievedfromInc.:https://www.inc.com/thomas-koulopoulos/performance-reviews-are-dead-
heres-what-you-should-do-instead.html
Marsh, A. (2018, 01 20). Wells Fargo endsfightwith a whistleblowerin fake-accountsscandal.Retrieved
fromFinancial Planning:https://www.financial-planning.com/news/wells-ends-fight-with-
whistleblower-in-fake-accounts-scandal
McNamara, C. M. (N.D.). CollaborativeConsulting forPerformance,Changeand Learning.Retrieved
fromManagementHelp:https://managementhelp.org/consulting/collaborative-consulting.htm
Morrel-Samuels,P.(2002). Getting to the Truth In Surveys. RetrievedfromHBR:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11468195_Getting_the_truth_into_workplace_surv
eys/link/553e852d0cf20184050f878f/download

Obstruction of Justice.(N.D.). RetrievedfromCornelle Law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
Passman& Kaplan,P.C.(2018, 01 26). Settlement Reached in Wells Fargo WhistleblowerCase . Retrieved
fromPassman& KaplanPC:https://www.passmanandkaplan.com/blog/2018/01/settlement-
reached-in-wells-fargo-whistleblower-retaliation-case.shtml
ProvideMultiple Meansof Engagement.(N.D.).RetrievedfromUDL:
http://udlguidelines.cast.org/engagement
Ryan,L. (2018, 03 17). Ten WaysTo Build TrustOn YourTeam. RetrievedfromForbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2018/03/17/ten-ways-to-build-trust-on-your-
team/#19c11e412445
Segal,T.(2019, 05 19). Enron Scandal:The Fall of a Wall Street Darling.RetrievedfromInvestopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/
SHRM Foundation.(2016). Creating a MoreHuman Workplace. RetrievedfromSHRM.ORG:
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-
views/Documents/Human-Workplace.pdf
Tran, S. K.(2017, 12 19). GOOGLE: a reflectionof culture,leader,andmanagement. InternationalJournal
of CorporateSocialResponsibility,2. Retrieved0123, 2020, from
https://jcsr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0
Vance,P.R. (2006). EmployeeEngagementand Commitment.RetrievedfromSHRM:
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-
views/Documents/Employee-Engagement-Commitment.pdf

Rebuilding Trust/Corporate Culture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Rebuilding Trust/Corporate Culture

Similar to Rebuilding Trust/Corporate Culture (20)

More from Stacey Troup

More from Stacey Troup (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rebuilding Trust/Corporate Culture